Noninvasive assessment oesophageal varices: impact of the Baveno VI criteria

Cost Effectiveness of the Baveno VI Criteria Compared With Endoscopy for High-Risk Varices in Patients With Child-Pugh A Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) remains the gold standard for detecting varices in cirrhosis, the Baveno VI criteria proposed a combination of transient elastography and platelet count that could rule out high-risk varices, therefore sparing the need for an endoscopy, with significant potential cost savings. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Baveno VI criteria compared with EGD in the diagnosis of high-risk varices in cirrhosis.

METHODS

We built an analytical decision model to estimate the cost and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria compared with EGD in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The analysis was performed from the UK National Health Service perspective, over 1, 5, and 20 years. A Markov model was populated with data from published evidence. Outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and avoided deaths. The analyses were repeated for Canada and Spain, using relevant cost inputs.

RESULTS

The Baveno VI criteria were cost effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses. For 1000 patients, they produced 0.16 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of £326 ($443.41) over 5 years, resulting in an incremental cost of £2081 ($2830) per additional QALY gained. The incremental net monetary benefit of Baveno VI compared with EGD was £2808 ($3819) over 5 years per patient. Baveno VI criteria also were cost effective in Canada and Spain. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate that the Baveno VI criteria are cost effective, suggesting that they should be considered for widespread implementation on the basis of safety, appropriateness, and economic grounds.

Spleen Stiffness-Based Algorithms Are Superior to Baveno VI Criteria to Rule Out Varices Needing Treatment in Patients With Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

INTRODUCTION

The Baveno VI criteria have set the stage for noninvasive assessment of compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD). The algorithm combining liver stiffness measurement (LSM, <20 kPa) and platelet count (>150,000/μL) safely avoids screening endoscopy for varices needing treatment (VNT) but identifies only a relatively low number of patients. We aimed to evaluate the value of spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) using spleen-dedicated elastography in ruling out VNT.

METHODS

In this real-life multicenter retrospective derivation-validation cohort, all consecutive patients with ACLD (defined by LSM ≥10 kPa) with available upper endoscopy, laboratory results, spleen diameter, LSM, and SSM measured with spleen-dedicated transient elastography were included. VNT were defined as medium-to-large varices or small varices with red spots.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort (n = 201, 11.9% VNT), SSM demonstrated excellent capability at identifying VNT (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.88), outperforming LSM (AUROC 0.77, P = 0.03) and platelets (AUROC 0.73, P = 0.002). In comparison with Baveno VI criteria (33.8% spared endoscopies), the sequential Baveno VI plus SSM and a novel spleen size and stiffness model were able to increase the number of patients avoiding endoscopy (66.2% and 71.1%, respectively) without missing more than 5% of VNT. These findings were confirmed in an external validation cohort of patients with more advanced liver disease (n = 176, 34.7% VNT) in which the number of spared endoscopies tripled (27.3% and 31.3% for SSM-based algorithms) compared with Baveno VI criteria (8.5%).

DISCUSSION

Spleen stiffness-based algorithms are superior to Baveno VI criteria in ruling out VNT in patients with ACLD and double the number of patients avoiding screening endoscopy.

Endoscopic procedures in hepatology: Current trends and new developments

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has long been a reliable backbone in the diagnosis and management of hepatobilary disorders and their complications. However, with evolving non-invasive testing, personalised medicine has reframed the utility and necessity of endoscopic screening. Conversely, the growing interest and use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and advanced endoscopy within gastrointestinal units has also opened novel diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for patients with various hepatobiliary diseases. The integration of "advanced endoscopy" within the practice of hepatology is nowadays referred to as "endo-hepatology". In essence, endo-hepatology consists of two pillars: one focusing primarily on disorders of the liver parenchyma, vascular disorders, and portal hypertension, which is mainly captured via EUS, while the other targets the hepatobiliary tract via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and advanced imaging. Applications under the umbrella of endo-hepatology include, amongst others, EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, coil and glue embolisation of gastric varices as well as cholangioscopy. As such endo-hepatology could become an attractive concept wherein advanced endoscopy might reinforce the medical management of patients with hepatobiliary disorders and their complications after initial basic work-up. In this review, we discuss current trends and future developments within endo-hepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

Role of endoscopy in hepatology

The growing and evolving field of EUS and advanced hepatobiliary endoscopy has amplified traditional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and unveiled novel options for remaining unsolved hepatobiliary issues, both diagnostically and therapeutically. This conceptually appealing and fascinating integration of endoscopy within the practice of hepatology is referred to as 'endo-hepatology'. Endo-hepatology focuses on the one hand on disorders of the liver parenchyma and liver vasculature and of the hepatobiliary tract on the other hand. Applications hanging under the umbrella of endohepatology involve amongst others EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure measurement, EUS-guided portal venous blood sampling, EUS-guided coil & glue embolization of gastric varices and spontaneous portosystemic shunts as well as ERCP in the challenging context of (decompensated cirrhosis) and intraductal cholangioscopy for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Although endoscopic proficiency however does not necessarily equal in an actual straightforward end-solution for currently persisting (complex) hepatobiliary situations. Therefore, endohepatology continues to generate high-quality data to validate and standardize procedures against currently considered (best available) "golden standards" while continuing to search and trying to provide novel minimally invasive solutions for persisting hepatological stalemate situations. In the current review, we aim to critically appraise the status and potential future directions of endo-hepatology.

Advances in Endohepatology

Over the past decade, the number of endoscopic procedures relevant to patients with liver disease not only increased but also altered and expanded in terms of indications and applications. "Endohepatology" refers to the integration of advanced endoscopy within the practice of hepatology with endoscopic ultrasound as one of the main pillars. Current applications under the umbrella of endohepatology focus on advanced diagnostics and oncological, vascular, and metabolic interventions. These involve, among others, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, and EUS-guided coil and glue embolization of gastric varices. In addition to its conceptually attractive technical and innovative characteristics, endohepatology is also an appealing practical option for daily practice because it can be offered as a "one-stop clinic" intervention where comprehensive endoscopic diagnostic and/or therapeutic testing is performed in a single outpatient visit. In this review, we will discuss current trends and future developments within endohepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

Non-invasive tools for compensated advanced chronic liver disease and portal hypertension after Baveno VII - an update

Non-invasive tests (NITs) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in particular, have entered clinical practice over 20 years ago as point-of-care tests to diagnose liver fibrosis in patients with compensated chronic liver disease. Since then, NITs use has evolved thanks to a large number of studies in all major etiologies of liver disease, and they have become important tools to stratify the risk of portal hypertension and liver-related events. The Baveno VII consensus workshop provided several novel recommendations regarding the use of well-established and novel NITs in the specific setting of portal hypertension screening, diagnosis and follow-up. The Baveno VII expert panels paid special attention to summarizing the existing data into simple clinical rules able to guide clinicians in their practice. The "rule of five" for LSM is a tool to stratify the risk of liver-related events, and LSM alone or in combination with platelet count, can be used now to rule-in and rule-out compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) and clinically significant portal hypertension, as well as to rule-out high-risk varices. Use of NITs in obese subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and patients with viral hepatitis C that has been successfully treated, require specific knowledge. This review will update the reader on these aspects.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

VariScreen secures the screening of high-risk varices in patients with hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis beyond Baveno VI criteria

We aimed to validate the performance of the ratio of the platelet count (PLT) to liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in excluding high-risk varices (HRVs) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related compensated cirrhosis beyond Baveno VI criteria. A total of 310 patients were assessed. The performances of the PLT:LSM ratio (PLER), PLER adjusted for the international normalized ratio, etiology, age, and sex (PLEASE), and the sequential algorithm for HRV screening (VariScreen) in excluding HRVs were evaluated and compared with those of expanded Baveno VI criteria (LSM &lt;25 kPa and PLT &gt;110×109/L, EB6C); PLT &gt;150×109/L and model for end-stage liver disease score = 6 (P150M6 criterion); PLT &gt;120×109/L and albumin &gt;36 g/L (P120A36 criterion); and albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and PLT score (ALBI-PLT score). Among the enrolled patients, 43 (13.9%) had HRVs. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of PLER for predicting HRVs (0.771, 95% confidence interval, 0.720–0.817) was significantly higher than that for PLT and LSM (p &lt; 0.01). PLER was an independent risk factor for HRVs. VariScreen, PLEASE, and PLER could spare 20 (6.5%), 91 (29.4%), and 60 (19.4%) endoscopies, with 0, 3 (3.3%), and 1 (1.7%) HRVs missed, respectively. The EB6C and P120A36 criteria could spare 45 (14.5%) and 36 (11.6%) endoscopies, with 1 (2.2%) and 1 (2.8%) HRVs missed, respectively. The P150M6 criterion and ALBI-PLT score missed 6.8% and 10.3% of HRVs, respectively. We found that PLER performed better than other non-invasive tests. VariScreen secured the screening of HRVs in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis beyond Baveno VI criteria.